This is part of a class assignment for Davidson College.
Richard Burr’s 2004 Senate Victory:
Explanation 1: Strong party backing and riding Bush’s coat-tails.
Compelling given Burr’s strong party ties:
—Burr was first elected in the Republican landslide of 1994.
—He “has been a close ally of the Bush administration, with the White House backing his run for Senate” (Hartsoe 2004).
—Bush carried North Carolina by 13 percentage points (over 370,000 votes) (cq.com).
—Voting in Congress, Burr supported Bush 96% of the time and supported the Republican agenda 94% of the time (cq.com).
Explanation 2: Burr followed national trends and capitalized on the values vote.
Not compelling given evidence that values played a less significant role in 2004:
—As The Economist reports, the 22% of voters who cited moral or ethical reasons for voting the way they did is significantly lower than past elections--35% in 2000 and 40% in 1996 (The Triumph... 2004).
Principles Vs. Victory
To discuss the extent to which Burr and Erskine Bowles (D) sacrificed particular principles to improve their chances of winning the senate seat, we must posit the standard of consistency. Candidates who consistently act to uphold their principles can be considered normatively better than those who alter their principles in an attempt to win an election.
For Bowles, much of who he is politically stems from his experience as Chief of Staff under President Clinton. Bowles touted fiscal responsibility by repeatedly mentioning the balanced budget he helped negotiate. While he could have proudly defended the President he served and what they accomplished together, Bowles decided that Clinton’s moral lapses and policies on tobacco would hurt him in the senate race. Though Clinton lost North Carolina by a combined margin in 1992 and 1996 of less than half (roughly 135,000 votes) the margin of victory for Bush in 2004, the perceptions of political poison shaped Bowles’ campaign (cq.com). Bowles refused to define the topic of Clinton in his own terms, compromising the principles that led him to the administration in favor of perceived electability.
Burr proved, through the unorthodoxy of his campaign strategy, that consistency of principles can lead to victory. Throughout his political career, Burr has demonstrated a knack for winning elections. Early in the 2004 campaign, many republican strategists expressed dismay, doubt, and frustration over slipping poll figures and the way Burr was being overshadowed by Bowles in the media (Whittington 2004). Burr ignored his critics from within his own party and enacted a patient, calculated strategy. Burr’s strategy emphasized the principles that helped him to five consecutive election victories: meeting with people face-to-face, allowing people to “meet Richard Burr before they met the candidate,” and controlling most aspects of the campaign personally (Savodnik 2004). Consistently sticking to his principles allowed Burr to eventually silence his critics, saying: “I was confident all along . . . a candidate’s gut is more accurate than a scientific poll” (Fulk 2004).
Created by: Taylor Ansley
Created: 12/5/04
Last Updated: 12/5/04